Criticism is one of the easiest tasks known to man. And when it comes to a sport that is followed with religious fervour by the best part of 1.2 billion fans - you often get 1.2 billion critics too. The Indian team's loss in the Lord's Test led to a number of questions being raised. Some questioned the preparedness of the players - a fair enough criticism - while others went down a route that's been travelled umpteen times: the 'Blame the IPL' highway.

Let's take a quick recap about the factors that contributed to India's loss. India were missing Virender Sehwag - the most destructive opener in cricket - who hadn't yet regained full fitness after a shoulder surgery. Zaheer Khan, India's pace spearhead and the leader and guide of the bowling attack, was out of action on Day 1 with a hamstring injury. When he went off, he had taken 2/18 from 13.3 overs. Sachin Tendulkar succumbed to a viral infection. Gautam Gambhir was hit on the elbow - an injury that fortunately didn't turn out to be a fracture - and couldn't open or bat with any great comfort.

The Indians were handicapped and the power of the opposition overwhelmed them. India couldn't survive Day 5 despite Raina's brilliance and exactly as Dhoni said at the presentation, 'Everything that could possibly go wrong, went wrong' for India.

A batsman like Sehwag will always be missed if he doesn't turn out for any of the teams he represents. His shoulder had been a little dodgy and the 'Blame the IPL' brigade pointed to the fact that if he had skipped the tournament and got surgery done earlier, he would have probably been ready for the first Test. But it doesn't quite sound right when the same set of experts who thoroughly enjoyed Sehwag's splendiferous hundred in the IPL against the Deccan Chargers, then turned against the Nawab of Najafgarh by blaming him for not skipping the tournament. And this doesn't even cover the important aspect of financial well-being that every cricketer has to take care of and which the IPL provides.

India were also blamed for poor decisions on the field. Take the case of what happened on the morning of Day 4. England were 72/5 and Ishant was ruling the roost at Lunch. In the afternoon session, everyone expected/wanted Ishant to come back and bowl, but that didn't happen. And immediately fingers were pointed. Nobody gave a thought to the fact that the tall fast bowler had just bowled 11 overs that morning, and perhaps needed a breather. Was the 40-minute lunch break not enough? Apparently not, since Ishant himself said later 'I have a body and I need rest', when asked why he hadn't come on immediately post-lunch.

Moreover, Dhoni had problems with the over rate and was in the brink of a suspension. Unfortunately, the other bowlers couldn't chip in and stop England from reaching a much more comfortable position. And by the time Ishant was brought on again, things were different with two set batsmen at the crease.

Dhoni's task has almost become like a football goalkeeper's job. You're not remembered for the goals you save, but for the ones that you let go. The loss against England - it must be reiterated - had more to do with the brilliance of the Englishmen and the luck that eluded the Indians.

The other topic of discussion is the case of Harbhajan Singh. Yes, the off-spinner was disappointing in the Test and hasn't been getting enough wickets recently. The figure in the career wickets column next to his name might read 405, but it doesn't speak of his poor current form. However, is it all that feasible to drop him? The only other spinner in the squad is Amit Mishra. If Harbhajan is dropped in favour of Mishra, and Mishra doesn't take wickets fingers will be pointed at Dhoni once more.

The truth is, Dhoni cannot lose his flair due to one bad game. Harbhajan hasn't taken 405 wickets by always bowling badly. Sehwag didn't have a crystal ball telling him that if he played in the initial part of the IPL, he would have to miss half of the England tour which was still three months away.

The truth is that the English side deserve credit for being the better ones across the five days of the Lord's Test, and it is better to give them that credit than speak of things that 'could have' or 'would have' been.

The second Test will hold much more answers than the first, and will let people know whether the Indian team is simply not good enough, or that Lord's was a combination of factors that will not be repeated.

If Sreesanth replaces Zaheer, will he deliver? Can Harbhajan re-discover himself? Will Tendulkar and Gambhir be fully fit? Will Dhoni's magic touch continue to work and will he pull another out-of-the-box plan off? We'll find out at Trent Bridge.